By Alexandra Keeler

The US has had a drug czar for decades. Experts share how this position has shaped US drug policy—and what it could mean for Canada

Last week, Canada announced it would appoint a “fentanyl czar” to crack down on organized crime and border security.

The move is part of a suite of security measures designed to address US President Donald Trump’s concerns about fentanyl trafficking and forestall the imposition of 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods.

David Hammond, a health sciences professor and research chair at the University of Waterloo, says, “There is no question that Canada would benefit from greater leadership and co-ordination in substance use policy.”

But whether Canada’s fentanyl czar “meets these needs will depend entirely on the scope of their mandate,” he told Canadian Affairs in an email.

Canadian authorities have so far provided few details about the fentanyl czar’s powers and mandate.

A Feb. 4 government news release says the czar will focus on intelligence sharing and collaborating with US counterparts. Canada’s Public Safety Minister, David McGuinty, said in a Feb. 4 CNN interview that the position “will transcend any one part of the government … [It] will pull together a full Canadian national response — between our provinces, our police of local jurisdiction, and work with our American authorities.”

Canada’s approach to the position may take cues from the US, which has long had its own drug czar. Canadian Affairs spoke to several US historians of drug policy to better understand the nature and focus of this role in the US.

The first drug czar

The term “czar” refers to high-level officials who oversee specific policy areas and have broad authority across agencies.

Today, the US drug czar’s official title is director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The director is appointed by the president and responsible for advising the president and coordinating a national drug strategy.

Taleed El-Sabawi, a legal scholar and public health policy expert at Wayne State University in Detroit, Mich., said the Office of National Drug Control Policy has two branches: a law enforcement branch focused on drug supply, and a public health branch focused on demand for drugs.

“Traditionally, the supply side has been the focus and the demand side has taken a side seat,” El-Sabawi said.

David Herzberg, a historian at University at Buffalo in Buffalo, N.Y., made a similar observation.

“US drug policy has historically been dominated by moral crusading — eliminating immoral use of drugs, and policing [or] punishing the immoral people (poor, minority, and foreign/traffickers) responsible for it,” Herzberg told Canadian Affairs in an email.

Harry Anslinger, who was appointed in 1930 as the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, is considered the earliest iteration of the US drug czar. The bureau later merged into the Drug Enforcement Administration, the lead federal agency responsible for enforcing US drug laws.

Anslinger prioritized enforcement, and his impact was complex.

“He was part of a movement to characterize addicts as depraved and inferior individuals and he supported punitive responses not just to drug dealing but also to drug use,” said Caroline Acker, professor emerita of history at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pa.

But Anslinger also cracked down on the pharmaceutical industry. He restricted opioid production, effectively making it a low-profit, tightly controlled industry, and countered pharmaceutical public relations campaigns with his own.

“The Federal Bureau of Narcotics [at the time could] in fact be seen as the most robust national consumer protection agency, with powers to regulate and constrain major corporations that the [Food and Drug Administration] could only dream of,” said Herzberg.

The punitive approach to drugs put in place by Anslinger was the dominant model until the Nixon administration. In 1971, President Richard Nixon created an office dedicated to drug abuse prevention and appointed Jerome Jaffe as drug czar.

Jaffe established a network of methadone treatment facilities across the US. Nixon initially combined public health and law enforcement to combat rising heroin use among Vietnam War soldiers, calling addiction the nation’s top health issue.

However, Nixon later reverted back to an enforcement approach when he used drug policy to target Black communities and anti-war activists.

“We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or Black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and Blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” Nixon’s top domestic policy aide, John Ehrlichman, said in a 1994 interview.

Michael Botticelli, Acting Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy March 7, 2014 – Jan. 20, 2017 under President Barack Obama. [Photo Credit: Executive Office of the President of the United States]

Back and forth

More recently, in 2009, President Barack Obama appointed Michael Botticelli as drug czar. Botticelli was the first person in active recovery to hold the role.

The Obama administration recognized addiction as a chronic brain disease, a view already accepted in scientific circles but newly integrated into national drug policy. It reduced drug possession sentences and emphasized prevention and treatment.

Trump, who succeeded Obama in 2016, prioritized law enforcement while rolling back harm reduction. In 2018, his administration called for the death penalty for drug traffickers, and in 2019, sued to block a supervised consumption site in Philadelphia, Pa.

Trump appointed James Carroll as drug czar in 2017. But in 2018 Trump proposed slashing the office’s budget by more than 90 per cent and transferring authority for key drug programs to other agencies. Lawmakers blocked the plan, however, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy remained intact.

In 2022, President Joe Biden appointed Dr. Rahul Gupta, the first medical doctor to serve as drug czar. Herzberg says Gupta also prioritized treatment, by, for example, expanding access to naloxone and addiction medications. But he also cracked down on drug trafficking.

In December 2024, Gupta outlined America’s international efforts to combat fentanyl trafficking, naming China, Mexico, Colombia and India as key players — but not Canada.

Gupta’s last day was Jan. 19. Trump has yet to appoint someone to the role.

Canada’s fentanyl czar

El-Sabawi says she views Canada’s appointment of a drug czar as a signal that the government will be focused on supply side, law enforcement initiatives.

Hammond, the University of Waterloo professor, says he hopes efforts to address Canada’s drug problems focus on both the supply and demand sides of the equation.

“Supply-side measures are an important component of substance use policy, but limited in their effectiveness when they are not accompanied by demand-side policies,” he said.

The Canada Border Services Agency and Health Canada redirected Canadian Affairs’ inquiries about the new fentanyl czar role to Public Safety Canada. Public Safety Canada did not respond to multiple requests for comment before publication.

El-Sabawi suggests the entire drug czar role needs rethinking.

“I think the role needs to be re-envisioned as one that is more of a coordinator [across] the administrative branch on addiction and overdose issues … as opposed to what it is now, which is really a mouthpiece — symbolic,” she said.

“Most drug czars don’t get much done.”

This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

She was surging in the polls—so why was she secretly disqualified? Was this a race or a coronation?

She Wasn’t Supposed to Win

Ruby Dhalla wasn’t supposed to be a problem. When she entered the Liberal leadership race, she was treated as an afterthought, an outsider with no chance of breaking through. Mark Carney was the clear favorite—not because he had some overwhelming grassroots movement behind him, but because the Liberal swamp had already crowned him as Trudeau’s successor. The decision had been made long before the race even began. But then, something happened that the elites didn’t see coming: Dhalla started gaining traction. She started signing up thousands of new members. She started climbing in the polls. And that’s when the Liberal machine kicked into overdrive to shut her down.

If you’ve been paying attention to Canadian politics, none of this should be surprising. This is how the Liberal Party operates. The leadership race was never about choosing the best candidate; it was about making sure their pre-selected golden boy, Mark Carney, strolled into power without opposition. Dhalla’s rise threatened that plan, and as we’ve seen time and time again, the Liberal establishment has no patience for democracy when it gets in the way of their backroom deals.

Who Is Ruby Dhalla?

Unlike Carney, who spent his career bouncing between bureaucratic positions and the boardrooms of global financial institutions, Ruby Dhalla actually had experience winning elections. She wasn’t a puppet installed by the elites—she had built her own career in politics. Born in Winnipeg to Punjabi immigrant parents, Dhalla had been politically active from a young age. At just 14, she made international headlines for standing up to India’s Prime Minister over Sikh violence, proving early on that she wasn’t afraid to challenge powerful figures.

In 2004, she was elected as Member of Parliament for Brampton—Springdale, becoming one of the first Sikh women in Canada’s Parliament. For seven years, she fought for causes that mattered to working-class Canadians—pushing for foreign credential recognition, better healthcare access, and policies that helped immigrants integrate and succeed instead of being stuck in low-wage jobs.

But the Liberal Party, especially under Trudeau, doesn’t like independent thinkers. Dhalla lost her seat in 2011, took a step back from politics, and then, in 2025, decided to make a comeback. This time, she wasn’t just running on her record—she was running to take back the Liberal Party from the corporate elites, career bureaucrats, and political insiders who had hijacked it. And for a brief moment, it looked like she might actually succeed.

Dhalla’s Platform Was A Direct Threat to the Liberal Swamp

Let’s get one thing straight: Dhalla wasn’t just another Liberal politician running on empty platitudes. She was actually taking on the biggest failures of the Trudeau era—the very policies that have driven the country into the ground.

She was the only candidate willing to take a hard stance on illegal immigration, promising to deport those who entered Canada illegally and crack down on human trafficking networks that had turned Canadian cities into a magnet for asylum scams. This was a direct rebuke of Trudeau’s open-border policies, which flooded major urban centers with asylum seekers while leaving legal immigrants—the ones who actually followed the rules—waiting years in bureaucratic limbo.

She also had the guts to address Canada’s crime wave—something the Liberal establishment refuses to even acknowledge. Under Trudeau, violent crime, carjackings, and organized theft rings have exploded across the country, while the justice system has been hijacked by radical left-wing activists who care more about “rehabilitating” criminals than protecting innocent people. Dhalla called for stronger sentencing laws, increased funding for law enforcement, and an end to the revolving-door justice system that lets repeat offenders walk free. This was a direct challenge to the Liberal Party’s activist wing, which has spent years prioritizing criminals over victims.

Economically, she focused on the cost-of-living crisis that Trudeau’s reckless spending had fueled. While Mark Carney was busy rubbing elbows with globalist elites, Dhalla was actually talking to working-class Canadians who were struggling to afford basic necessities, being crushed by inflation, and priced out of homeownership. She proposed tax relief for small businesses, homeownership incentives, and policies to lower the cost of essential goods. Most importantly, she vowed to end corporate influence over government policy—something that would have put her in direct conflict with the very donors bankrolling Carney’s campaign.

The Fix Was In—And the Liberal Establishment Didn’t Even Try to Hide It

While Dhalla was out winning over actual voters, Carney didn’t have to lift a finger—at least, that’s how she sees it. According to Dhalla, the Bay Street donors, the Liberal bureaucrats, and Trudeau’s inner circle had already decided he would be their next puppet. But her unexpected momentum was throwing a wrench into their plans.

She claims her campaign signed up over 100,000 new members—a surge that, in her view, proved just how many Canadians wanted an alternative to the establishment. Internal polling allegedly showed that she was running neck and neck with Carney, challenging the idea that he was the inevitable frontrunner. Most importantly, she says she was calling out corruption within the party—something the Liberal insiders simply couldn’t tolerate.

That, she argues, is when the knives came out.

According to Dhalla, her campaign faced deliberate obstruction at every turn. She says she was denied access to crucial party membership lists, while Carney’s team faced no such restrictions. She also claims the party handed exclusive control of voter data to Data Sciences, a company with deep ties to both Trudeau and Carney—giving the establishment free rein over the internal mechanics of the race.

Then came what Dhalla describes as a financial ambush. Leadership candidates were required to submit a $350,000 deposit to stay in the race. Her campaign, backed by thousands of small-dollar donors, met that requirement in full. But just days later, she says, the party suddenly hit her with a six-page letter listing 27 allegations—none of which had been raised before she made her final payment. Despite fully cooperating, answering every question, and providing every requested document, Dhalla was disqualified behind closed doors.

But were these serious concerns about party rules and ethics? Or were they just serious concerns for Mark Carney’s leadership bid?

They didn’t even bother waiting for a debate. They removed her just before the first leadership debate in Montreal, ensuring that Carney wouldn’t have to answer a single tough question. The only real challenger was gone. And just like that, the “race” was over.

A Staged Leadership Race

With Dhalla and Chandra Arya—the only two South Asian candidates—mysteriously vanished from the race, the Liberal Party has officially dropped the mask. This is not a party of “inclusion” or “diversity” or whatever meaningless buzzword they trot out when the cameras are rolling. This is a party of insiders, where Trudeau’s handpicked elites play musical chairs with Canada’s future while pretending to hold a fair contest. And now, with the competition conveniently wiped off the board, Mark Carney—the globalist banker with a resume straight out of the Davos job fair—is all but guaranteed his coronation.

And let’s take a moment to acknowledge who’s left. Chrystia Freeland—who doesn’t even bother hiding her ties to Carney (he’s literally her children’s godfather)—isn’t running against him, she’s running as his insurance policy. If, for some reason, Carney stumbles, Freeland will be right there to catch the baton and carry on the exact same elite-driven, Canada-last agenda. And then there’s Karina Gould, a candidate so irrelevant to this race that her sole purpose seems to be testing the waters for the Liberals’ shiny new Marxist project: Universal Basic Income. Because if there’s one thing Trudeau’s Liberals love more than taxing Canadians into the ground, it’s making them dependent on government handouts.

This was never a leadership race. It was a staged coronation, a laughable farce cooked up by the same Liberal swamp who have spent the last decade running Canada into the ground. If this had happened in another country, Canadian politicians would be tripping over themselves to condemn it, talking about how democracy is under attack. But because it happened inside the Liberal Party, the media just shrugs and moves on, pretending this is all perfectly normal. Because, in their world, it is.

And that’s the real story here. If this is how the Liberals run their own leadership race, what do you think they’ll do in the next federal election? If they’re willing to purge their own candidates, rig their own nomination process, and outright silence anyone who dares to challenge their elite-controlled puppet show, then what chance does the average Canadian voter have?

This isn’t just corrupt. It’s disgusting. It’s a slap in the face to every Canadian who still believes in fair elections, free debate, and the basic idea that leaders should be chosen by the people—not installed behind closed doors by Trudeau’s golfing buddies and Bay Street billionaires.

The Liberal Party isn’t a political party anymore. It’s a gated country club for the ruling class, where power is passed around like a family heirloom. And if no one stands up to stop it, they’ll keep getting away with it. The fix is in, the swamp is deeper than ever, and the only question left is: Are Canadians going to do anything about it?